What are the effects of the Roe Overturn today?

[LeftofLeft]

bullshit. the effects will be devastating.




simply? that's even more bullshit. what if one has no car? what if one has no extra funds for gas, food, lodging - on top of the ability to take even more time off, on top of paying for the procedure?

Obamacare will be expanded to fund everything you sited. Federal facilities in said states will provide abortions. Federally speaking, nothing has changed except for a return to States’ rights and no abortion clinics on every Main Street USA. Every woman in the US will still be able to have an abortion.

 

[kaz]

I never screamed “make her”. If you have to lie to make a point, you have no point.

So just to be clear, your position for the jab was it's a woman's body and her choice, you were against the Democrats coercing her to do it, that's what you're saying.

Did you ever say so?

 

[sartre play]

The decision shows how much political manipulation can change events in our lives, If it continues at some point they will cause you personal pain, No one is safe from self serving political & money making motives.

 

[Coyote]

So just to be clear, your position for the jab was it's a woman's body and her choice, you were against the Democrats coercing her to do it, that's what you're saying.

Did you ever say so?

My position on that (and I’ve said it) is that the government cannot force ALL citizens to be vaccinated, but there are exceptions: military, healthcare workers, children in public schools. All of those exceptions mandate other vaccinations as well.

How about you, does your support of “my body, my choice“ extend to a woman’s private medical decisions like abortion?

 

[kaz]

My position on that (and I’ve said it) is that the government cannot force ALL citizens to be vaccinated, but there are exceptions: military, healthcare workers, children in public schools. All of those exceptions mandate other vaccinations as well.

How about you, does your support of “my body, my choice“ extend to a woman’s private medical decisions like abortion?

So how was I lying then when I said you wanted to force women to get the jab? Your only answer is well, not all of them.

Sorry, nice try turning it around, but fail. I am consistent. I am pro-choice and anti-Covid mandates. I consistently say it's a woman's body. Do you really not know what a libertarian is? You seem smarter at times than other leftists. Granted a low bar, never the less ...

 

[Coyote]

So how was I lying then when I said you wanted to force women to get the jab? Your only answer is well, not all of them.

Sorry, nice try turning it around, but fail. I am consistent. I am pro-choice and anti-Covid mandates. I consistently say it's a woman's body. Do you really not know what a libertarian is? You seem smarter at times than other leftists. Granted a low bar, never the less ...

You are consistent? Do you oppose all required vaccinations?

 

[toobfreak]

This isn't just about Roe, and that's the problem.

What other imaginary things do you imagine it is about in that little fantasy-laden paranoid mind of yours?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don’t agree. The original Roe decision Was supported by judges from both ideological sides. These last three judges were specifically chosen because they on the Federalist Societies list for overturning Roe. The fact they disregard massive amounts of case law and precedent in this and in overturning the Sullivan law is pretty indicative of how unusual and politically partisan this court has become. Mitch McConnell politicized the nomination process to a whole new level. It isn’t good for our country.

Correct.

Roe is also supported by settled, accepted privacy rights jurisprudence dating back decades prohibiting the state from interfering with the fundamental right of citizens to decide whether to have a child or not – see Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942).

Indeed, Roe wasn’t really a ‘landmark’ decision – it was the logical, reasonable, appropriate progeny of that settled, accepted privacy rights jurisprudence; one of many reasons why Dobbs was so wrongly decided.

 

[toobfreak]

You are consistent? Do you oppose all required vaccinations?

Non-sequitur--- --- the mRNA is not any normal vaccine, has many more risks than other vaccines, and worst of all: isn't really a vaccine in the traditional sense! If I get a flu shot, I'm pretty much good to go for at least a year with no flu worries until a new strain emerges. If I get a vaccine for measles, etc., I'm pretty much good for life, but if I get the Covid vaccine, its effects are down 50% just within 2-3 months and in effect, doesn't even keep me from catching Covid much less transmitting it to others. If I'm over 65 to 85 where most Covid deaths occur, it might just lessen the symptoms allowing the very old and ill to survive it. So it is an exception, should only be administed voluntarily to the very old or ill, and certainly not to anyone below the age of about 25, much less children and infants.

 

[BS Filter]

Correct.

Roe is also supported by settled, accepted privacy rights jurisprudence dating back decades prohibiting the state from interfering with the fundamental right of citizens to decide whether to have a child or not – see Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942).

Indeed, Roe wasn’t really a ‘landmark’ decision – it was the logical, reasonable, appropriate progeny of that settled, accepted privacy rights jurisprudence; one of many reasons why Dobbs was so wrongly decided.

Abortion isn't a right.

 

[struth]

I don’t agree. The original Roe decision Was supported by judges from both ideological sides. These last three judges were specifically chosen because they on the Federalist Societies list for overturning Roe. The fact they disregard massive amounts of case law and precedent in this and in overturning the Sullivan law is pretty indicative of how unusual and politically partisan this court has become. Mitch McConnell politicized the nomination process to a whole new level. It isn’t good for our country.

had the left not went nuclear with nominations so they could pack the DC Circuit with radicals Mitch would never of been able to get three justices on

 

[OKTexas]

You are consistent? Do you oppose all required vaccinations?

Most vaccines actually work, the covid vaccine, not so much.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Correct.

Roe is also supported by settled, accepted privacy rights jurisprudence dating back decades prohibiting the state from interfering with the fundamental right of citizens to decide whether to have a child or not – see Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942).

Indeed, Roe wasn’t really a ‘landmark’ decision – it was the logical, reasonable, appropriate progeny of that settled, accepted privacy rights jurisprudence; one of many reasons why Dobbs was so wrongly decided.

And even Ginsberg said that was the flimsiest reasoning at best. Go freaking figure.

.

 

[toobfreak]

I don’t agree. The original Roe decision Was supported by judges from both ideological sides.

Meaningless.

The fact they disregard massive amounts of case law and precedent

You mean case law based on a flawed decision. Such case law then is rendered moot. SCOTUS regarded the one law that actually mattered, the CONSTITUTION.

So is is the inviolability of the physical body: personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies.

You're making a good case against forcing Covid vaxes on people! But nowhere in the Constitution or BoR is any such inviolability described; if anything, it just goes farther to illustrate that the fetus is not a woman's body but merely IN a woman's body. She has some say over the fetus obviously as it is hers and is growing in her off her body but that say is not absolute nor unlimited.

Perhaps you should read the actual wording which struck down RvW:

 

[Winston]

That's odd. They could find no support for abortion anywhere in the Constitution and returned the decision to the states.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Just for shits and giggles, read the decision. I mean one thing is for sure, the justices that signed on do this opinion have missed their calling. They should be in the Olympics, the height of the logical jumps they are making is record breaking.

There are many "rights" we take for granted that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The right to a fair trial, the right to vote, to marry, and in fact, the right to privacy, is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. But is within this right to privacy that Rowe v. Wade was based.

For a right not mentioned in the Constitution to be protected it must have been a right present and accepted at the time the Constitution was written. That was the case for abortion. There were many herbal means of inducing an abortion and it was accepted practice prior to "quickening", an old world that equates to viability. In fact, it was considered a concept of common English law. That can be demonstrated by reading newspaper articles written during that time frame.

To avoid this reality this decision doesn't examine the history of abortion until the middle of the 19th century. Although briefly mentioning the criminal status of abortion after "quickening", conveniently ignoring that the very statue in question banned abortion before quickening. But to the history they do focus on, shortly after the formation of the AMA, a group of white men, that organization lobbied hard to ban abortions. Nor for any protection of life, but to wrestle control of the female reproductive treatment away from midwifes, almost all female and a majority either Native American or women of color. It appears we have traveled full circle and are back to the point where mostly white men determine the reproductive rights of all women, disproportionally affecting women of color.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A federal mandate would just be as unconstitutional as Roe v. Wade.

All of our rights and protected liberties are in jeopardy, under attack by Republicans.

Except for white conservative heterosexual Christian males, of course.

The right’s efforts to eliminate the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that safeguards residents of the states has just begun - overturn Roe was just the start.

Once eliminated, Republican lawmakers in Republican-controlled states will pursue an aggressive agenda to disadvantage religious, ethnic, and racial minorities along with immigrants and gay and transgender Americans.

 

[toobfreak]

And even Ginsberg said that was the flimsiest reasoning at best. Go freaking figure.

Yes, Ruth Ginsberg herself said that Roe v Wade was highly flawed. And no one can argue with Ruth!!!

 

[Winston]

Not really. The founders never thought that would be a problem, and wasn't until Dementia tried to force working people to take a vaccine they rejected.

George Washington mandated that his troops be inoculated against smallpox. But more importantly, when the Virginia legislature refused to "mandate" that inoculation for the population Washington ripped off a letter saying not only would he mandate it, but he would impose "severe" penalties to those that refused to comply. Would love to post it but takes time to find it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So is is the inviolability of the physical body: personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies.

Sure it is, but we are talking two bodies instead of one. But my position is not about being pro-life, it's about using the Constitution as a protection document for something it was never designed for. Again, a pregnant woman can move or travel to another state for an abortion if they like. Go for it.

 

[Winston]

Yes, it's used by us who believe in the right to carry our guns, but the court only rules on the constitutionality, not the reasons for exercising it.

Furthermore you can find quotes of our founders on the subject and even debates where self-defense was part of the debate. You will never find a debate on abortion when any of our amendments were written.

https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Debates-in-the-Federal-Convention-of-1787.pdf

Have at it. Show me where "self-defense" was even bought up in the debate over the second amendment.